Monday, September 28, 2009

This Thursday, 1st October, I’m going to be giving a talk about MassTransit, a lean, open source, service bus for building loosely-coupled, message-based applications. The first half of the talk will be some general thoughts about message based architectures and why we should be considering them. The second half will be an overview of MassTransit. There will be plenty of code, but be warned, I’ve been getting crazy with Powerpoint animations to try and explain some of the concepts.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Building software is hard. I’ve been involved in building business systems for 13 years and it’s probably fair to say that I’ve been involved in more failures than successes, and I’m pretty sure that’s not merely the function of my effectiveness (or lack of it) as a software developer. Any business embarking on the development of a core system is taking on significant risk, because the core competencies of building software are probably not the core competencies of the business. After all the business of building software is a huge problem domain in its own right with a large and complex body of expertise.

Recognising this, many businesses when faced with a Buy vs Build decision will do almost anything to avoid Build; purchasing Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) systems is always the preferred decision.

If your business need is a common one, then purchasing a COTS system is almost always the right choice. You would be insane to consider building a bespoke word processor for example.

But often it’s the case that your requirements are somewhat common, but with unique elements that only your business would need.

Given the understandable preference for Buy over Build, the temptation is to take a COTS system, or systems, and either fit your business around it, or have it customised in some way. So long as the features of the COTS software and your requirements overlap it’s worth buying it right?

Sure you will have some unsatisfied requirements and there will be some features of the COTS system that you don’t use, but you are still getting benefit. The unsatisfied requirements can be fulfilled by customising or extending the COTS package and the unused features can just be ignored.

You may have a requirement for customer relationship management for example; why not just buy MSCRM from Microsoft? The things your customers care about might be somewhat unique, but the Microsoft reseller will assure that MSCRM can be customised to meet your requirements. You might also have case-management style requirements alongside your customer relationship ones, why not buy a case management tool as well and simply integrate it with MSCRM?

But now, as soon as you decide to go down the COTS + customisation route, you are effectively doing software development. Except that now you have suckered your way into doing it rather than approaching it with your eyes open. You will find that extending and customising COTS systems is often a horrible variant of ugly hackery that’s almost impossible to do with good software craftsmanship. You will still have to hire developers, but instead of allowing them to build well architected solutions, you will be forcing them to do a dirty and thankless job. You can guess the calibre of developer that will be attracted to such a position.

The reason why it’s hackery is that it’s almost impossible to extend or customise software without rewriting at least a part of it; and of course, you won’t be able to rewrite your closed-source COTS system. To answer this, most COTS vendors pay some lip service to customisability and extensibility, but the hooks they provide are always somewhat clunky and limited. Anyone who has tried to build a system on top of Sharepoint, or customise MSCRM will know the pain involved. It’s the same for pretty much any enterprise software system.

Each additional requirement over and above the out-of-the-box features will cost significantly more than the equivalent additional requirement of a custom system.

You have a graph somewhat like this:

So long as your set of customisations is limited, it’s still worth going down the COTS route, but my experience is that the point where the two lines cross is further to the left than is often appreciated. The chart doesn’t of course factor in the original cost of the COTS system and that can be substantial for many ‘enterprise’ software packages.

A further consideration that’s often ignored is that business requirements often change over time. How are you going to ensure that your COTS system, even if it perfectly matches your requirements now, can continue to match them into the future?

So if you have to do software development, and you will have to unless you can find a COTS system that fully satisfies your requirements, why not do it properly: hire and nurture a great software team; put professional software development practices in place; properly analyse your business; work out exactly what you need from your supporting applications, and then build a system that exactly fits your needs.

An alternative might be to build a close relationship with a bespoke software house, but be aware that their incentives will not be fully aligned with yours and in any case, if your system is substantial, they will probably simply go to the open market and hire the same team of developers that you could have hired yourself.

So consider carefully the costs of a COTS system that doesn’t fully meet your requirements and don’t ignore the benefits that bespoke software built and supported by an in-house team can bring.

NHibernate in Action by Pierre Henri Kuaté, Tobin Harris, Christian Bauer, and Gavin King is essential reading and can be purchased from the publisher, Manning’s, website: http://www.manning.com/kuate/

Code Rant

Notepad, thoughts out loud, learning in public, misunderstandings, mistakes. undiluted opinions. I'm Mike Hadlow, an itinerant developer. I live (and try to work in) Brighton on the south coast of England.

All code is published under an MIT licence. You are free to take it and use it for any purpose without attribution. There is no warranty whatsoever.